Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna
546 U.S. ___ (2006)

Annotate this Case

546 U. S. ____ (2006)
546 U. S. ____ (2006)
546 U. S. ____ (2006)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
NO. 04-1264

BUCKEYE CHECK CASHING, INC., PETITIONER v. JOHN CARDEGNA et al.

on writ of certiorari to the supreme court of florida

[February 21, 2006]

   Justice Thomas, dissenting.

   I remain of the view that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U. S. C. §1 et seq., does not apply to proceedings in state courts. See Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson,513 U. S. 265, 285–297 (1995) (Thomas, J., dissenting); Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto,517 U. S. 681, 689 (1996) (same); Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle,539 U. S. 444, 460 (2003) (same). Thus, in state-court proceedings, the FAA cannot be the basis for displacing a state law that prohibits enforcement of an arbitration clause contained in a contract that is unenforceable under state law. Accordingly, I would leave undisturbed the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.